Co-Management of Food Safety and Conservation

1. Co-Management of Food Safety and Conservation Daniel Mountjoy, Ph.D., Assistant State Conservationist for Field Operations August 21, 2009

2. How did we get here?

3. Spinach Outbreak 2006 • Aug 15, 2006: ready to eat baby spinach contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 • September 8, 2006: hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) outbreak identified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) • September 15, 2006 source of spinach located in San Benito County California and costly nationwide recall initiated • January 2007: CDC confirmed 3 deaths and 205 illnesses from the August E. coli contamination. • March 2007: FDA and CDC report concluded two potential sources of contamination: • the mixing of ground water with contaminated surface water • vectoring by wildlife, most likely feral pigs

4. Food Safety Guidelines for Leafy Greens Production • Conduct monthly microbial testing of irrigation water. • Identify potential sources of contamination that affect water quality. • Protect wells from contaminated surface run-off or soil infiltration. • Do not allow runoff from adjacent properties to come into contact with produce. • Monitor and prevent animals of significant risk from contaminating surface water supplies. • Do not harvest crops, or plant, in soils affected by flooding. Source: FDA (1998) and LGMA (2008) GAP documents

5. Farmers & Ranchers Squeezed Between Conflicting Needs To: • Produce abundant, high quality crops, • Comply with water quality and species protection regulations • Comply with demanding ag industry food safety guidelines and 3rd party Audits • While projecting a proactive public image that inspires trust in agriculture.

6. From the Field: The Growers’ Perspective2007 • Response rate: 30% of 600 row crop growers. • 181 growers own/operate 140,000 acres of row crops. • Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties. Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

7. 2007 Grower Survey Results • Of the Respondents: • 80% participated in Farm Water Quality Protection Short Course & had Farm Water Quality Plans • 91% adopted 1 or more “conservation practices aimed to improve water quality and/or wildlife habitat” • 63% voluntarily received technical assistance Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

8. RCDMC’s Grower’s Survey Ponds and Waterways ~ streams, natural ponds, tailwater recovery ponds, irrigation water reservoirs, sediment and water catch basins : • “It has been suggested that I remove them” 14.8%; • “I have actively removed them in response to auditors or others comments.” = 7.4%

9. RCDMC’s Grower’s Survey Non-crop Vegetation ~ filter strips, hedgerows, critical area plantings, grassed waterways: • “It has been suggested that I remove it” = 32.1%; • “I have actively removed it in response to auditors or others comments.” = 32.1%

10. Trends in NRCS Conservation Practices Applied

11. Studies Show • Science Shows Conservation Practices Can ‘Treat’ Human Pathogens: • Perennial forage and/or grasses in CA (Tate et al. 2006) • Vegetated Treatment Systems review of 40 field trials • Kadlec and Knight 1996; Koelsch et al. 2006) • Constructed Wetlands (Hench et al. 2003; Nokes et al. • 2003; Greenway et al. 2005) Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

12. RCDMC’s Grower’s Survey Wildlife ~ Non-domestic Animals: • “It has been suggested that I discourage the presence of wildlife.” 47.7% • “I have actively discouraged wildlife in response to auditors or others comments.” 40.7%

13. Fencing - 40% (66,000 acres) Measures Adopted to Discourage Wildlife: Poison Bait Stations – 50% (108,000 acres) Trapping - 40% (87,000 acres) Bare Ground Buffers - 50% (92,000 acres) Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

14. Studies Show Science Shows Some Animal Species Pose Higher Food Safety Risks than Others: • Commensal species ~ thrive with human activity/associated with human waste • Unnaturally high densities, even if they have low incidence of pathogen Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

15. Potential Consequences of Actions to Comply with Food Safety Guidelines • Abandonment of agricultural tailwater reuse systems… …Transport of pathogens to other farms through runoff • Abandonment of sediment detention basins… …Increased likelihood of flooding

16. The Challenge: Balancing Food Safety and Conservation Goals • Not necessarily a trade-off between conflicting goals. • Proper balance of conservation and food safety practices can maximize benefits while accomplishing both objectives. • Use science-based evaluation instead of zero risk tolerance.

17. Potential sources of water quality impairment Potential sources of pathogen contamination Imported amendments Irrigation water Flood waters Animal intrusion Off-farm detection Waterways Crop detection Cropland Dust Farm roads Upland water runoff Co-Management Landscape Perspective Upland land uses

18. 1. Consider conservation practice effect on pathogen vectors Practices in Question: • Hedgerows • Windbreaks • Filter Strips • Grassed Waterways • Sediment Basins • Tailwater Systems • Streambank Protection

19. 1. Consider conservation practice effect on pathogen vectors: Windbreaks Potential Pathogen Vectors: • Water: unlikely to affect, may serve to filter overland flow • Air: Significant reduction in potential dust-borne pathogen movement from livestock • Animals: Insufficient cover for large animals of concern such as pigs or deer, • Animals: trees can be selected to attract native birds and beneficial insects to reduce pests and need for insecticides.

20. 2. Weigh known resource protection benefits against potential food safety risks: Sediment Basins • Pro: Trap and store sediments and soil-adsorbed contaminants. • Pro: Preserve capacity of downstream waterways, ditches, canals, streams, wetlands and reservoirs. • Pro: Prevent downstream flooding of cropland. • Con: May temporarily attract animals.

21. 3. Propose management strategies to reduce potential food safety risk: Grassed Waterways • Select non-seeding grass species to reduce summer food supply for animals. • Mow to discourage voles, allow taller growth to discourage squirrels. • Install silt fence as barrier to small animal movement into crop Note: unlikely that rodents are a pathogen vector in open crop land

22. 4. Promote alternative conservation practices to achieve water quality protection: • Farm Layout • Irrigation Water Management • Nutrient Management • Pest Management

23. 5. Evaluate natural resource and food safety impact of industry food safety advice: Bare Ground Buffers • Increase in soil erosion & sedimentation. • Degrade water quality & aquatic habitat. • Reduced food and cover for some rodents. • No affect on movement of pigs, deer, or squirrels from rangeland • Eliminates pathogen reduction benefits of vegetation as a filter.

24. Summary: Integrating Food Safety and Environmental Protection Public concern about food safety is affecting multiple crops and animal products nationwide and the food processing industry want to limit its liability. Farmers and ranchers need technical support to resolve conflicts between competing environmental and food safety requirements. Human and environmental health are interconnected; a co-management approach is needed. Implementation of co-management currently lacks critical research to evaluate relative risks of multiple vectors. Draft National Food Safety Legislation includes consideration of conservation and organic farming practices. Local NRCS and Conservation District training material for farmers and auditors can be expanded to other regions. Food safety considerations should be included in the Conservation Planning process and in NRCS Practice Standards.

25. Daniel.Mountjoy@ca.usda.gov 831-754-1595 ext 107